Posted by grantduck on 12/2/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by thewizard17 on 11/27/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
*Limit to 1 early entry per team per season or have NBA draft before the start of period one, assuming there are no obstacles and doesn't interfere with the game in any other manner.
*Open scouting for all undecided players to Level 4 of last 1 or 2 cycles of period 2
*Keep D-1, D-2, D-3 recruiting separate. Generate some better recruits in each division as needed.
*Eliminate the randomness that goes with winning a recruit. If someone gets to 51% recruiting effort the recruit is theirs.
I figured this would eliminate a lot of the frustrations that coaches have. I'm not sure if it's possible to have the NBA draft before the start of period 1 without any direct or indirect impact on the game. By opening scouting to level 4 on the last two cycles, you're allowing teams that lost battles during recruiting to potentially find that "diamond in the rough". Also, I think the divisions should be kept separate when recruiting, just seems another added frustration for coaches. D-1 can't recruit D-2 players and vice versa. Generate more and better players at D-2 and D-3 to keep them happy and diminish the frustration of D-1 coaches losing battles to D-2 teams.
Lastly, I think the randomness that comes with recruiting absolutely needs to go. Feel free to add your thoughts.
I actually don't like any of these suggestions.
The simple answer is to give everyone base amount of recruiting points(say 50, plus bonus for open scholarships) to make it more even, then make the # of recruits available in part 1 much much smaller.
That's it, that's all. Very simple fixes.
They shouldn't make the # of recruits smaller in cycle 1. Instead, there should be a few more recruits who prefer to wait until the end of cycle 2 to sign. Any previous recruiting points/visits/etc that are used on a recruit who isn't signed in cycle 1 -- and is carried over to cycle 2 -- downgrades.
Example:
Northern Illinois spends 400 recruiting points, 16 HVs, 1 CV and a 20 minute playing time promise on a PG in cycle 1. PG doesn't sign in cycle 1. When cycle 2 begins, the computer knocks off 50% of the value of that recruiting effort, so it is the equivalent of 200 points, 8 HVs, .5 CV and 10 minutes promised. The intervening period lessens the value of that earlier recruiting effort...the recruit isn't thinking about the school, forgets some of what happened on the visits, etc.
Under this scenario, another school -- say Illinois -- coming in at the beginning of cycle 2 can still make a play for the PG. Northern Illinois's advantage is not overwhelming and they are going to have to invest heavily in order to maintain that advantage. A school that just lost its PG as an EE might like this player and go hard after him.
Under this system, going after a player who has a preference for signing in cycle 2 has a risk/reward component. If you think you can come with enough overwhelming force to get them to sign in cycle 1, you might be able to steal them. But if they last until cycle 2, you have a much higher risk of someone spending enough to beat you out. So do you pre-emptively go after your plan B PG who isn't as good, but wants to sign as early as possible? Or do you stick with this guy because you think he is worth spending big to win him?